The Republican stupid - it burns. From Kathleen Parker’s column at the WaPo:
Well, at least they didn’t kiss.Holy smoke, is the “Breck Girl” reference to the former NC senator going to make comeback? I leave it to Brad at Sadly, No to break this sh*t down.I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.
Don’t look at me. David “Mudcat” Saunders, Edwards’s former rural adviser, came up with the idea, saying Obama should kiss Edwards on the lips “to kill this 41-point loss,” referring to Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in the West Virginia primary.
Instead, the two men exchanged a manly air-hug to commemorate the moment when Edwards threw Clinton under the upholstered sofa on his grandmama’s front porch.
It’s tough to list all the things that make this column so mind-crushingly stupid, but let’s give it a shot:How come I don’t hear about this loving - ahem - male bonding:
- Parker begins the column by calling Edwards and Obama fags.
- Then, not having the courage to stand by this novel and poignant insight, she claims that it wasn’t her idea to call them fags, but was instead the idea of one of Edwards’ advisers. But hey, they’re still gay homo fruits who like to take it up the homobutt.
- Next, she pulls out the oldest trick in the Wingnut Punditry Bible: she lectures us about what Real Americans think! Never mind that she’s spent her entire working life on the Wingnut Welfare circuit - she’s got her hand on the pulse of The People, baby!
- And what do Real Americans think, you ask? Why, they’re apparently super-duper happy about the state of the country! Even though, like, 85% of them are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. And even though Bush’s approval rating stands at a sterling 28%. And even though the Republicans just lost a goddamn seat in freaking Mississippi.
33 Responses to “Good old Republican Obama-Edwards fag-baiting WaPo op-ed”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Landslide in WV primary? WTF? Weren’t there like, oh, five delagates in question?
Wouldn’t they call that “mountain top removal” anyway?
I have to laugh … if you look into Obama’s history with elections, there are two observations: he runs campaigns that have a huge positive cash balance, and he’s brushing this stuff off - for a while - and then he’s going to start metaphorically kneecapping people right and left and nobody is gonna know what happened.
C’mon. Can’t we run that picture of Bush and McCain in each other’s arms again.
This is the kind of crap that should never have gotten past the editors.
Unfuckingbelievable.
This is why I get my news off the intertubes now. No inadvertant reading of Parker or Chavez or Novak etc.
The stupid does burn.
Both of these men are happily married to their first wives, and when I say “happily married”, I mean their wives are obviously happily married to them as well.
Unlike any of the Republican candidates (except Romney who’s sort of allowed mutliple wives anyway).
Yet these men who are happily partnered with the mothers of their children are “teh gay” and John McCain, who ditched his wife for the fortunes of Cindy is a manly man.
Which of these men uses women as props and which actually falls in love with them?
Under the embroiderd sofa????? Where’d that come from?
I think Caren has a great point, but in a way she answers her own question. Yeah, if you take the current rightwing mindset of virulent patriarchy mixed with bad ev psych, any man who is happily married to a strong woman is by definition insufficiently masculine. Moreso if she appears to be happy with the marriage. For these losers, it’s like imagining a king without a mistress or a CEO without a trophy wife.
they’re still gay homo fruits who like to take it up the homobutt.
If I had a homobutt, I bet I’d like to take it up there! Sadly, all I have is a heterobutt.
While having both kinds of butts might be interesting, I imagine that it would make it rather difficult to buy pants.
Well, Michelle doesn’t seem very happy about much of anything. Life has treated her very well, and, the way she talks, you’d think someone had come into her house, climbed up on her breakfast table, dropped trou, and squeezed a big deuce into her morning cornflakes. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard such relentless negativity from someone who is campaigning.
I’m sure John and Elizabeth are very close, though. They probably sit around on Sunday afternoons giving each other makeovers. No. I’m kidding of course. John’s hair and makeup is always professionally applied.
This primary is going to end very badly. I can feel it. Extremely badly. Hope I am wrong.
1. All pro-hillary blog are just now warming up. Things that they should have done 3 months ago are just happening now. (this is the same feminism echo chamber blog, safe-space/only approved comment allowed.) It will explode like all drama before and going to engulf the progressive blog. (will take at least 2-3 weeks to fix)
almost all are pushing Hillary campaign talking point (map-not math, the popular vote, Hillary or nothing, I’ll vote McCain, etc) Everybody is busy ignoring basic number and agreed party rule to prevent this very event.
2. delegates/super delegates are untouchable by now. Obama is down to 118, Hillary is still 308. There is NO WAY Hillary is going to make it aside fro using MI/FL skewed number. (She is the only one on ballet and insist that count as full and fair vote.) The math is now truly impossible for Hillary.
3. none of Hillary side blogger are particularly skillful at managing crowd anger, almost all only now hit 10K. And happily pumping it up.
I have no idea what Hillary is doing, but whatever she is doing is going to make her supporter very angry between June and convention. She is not going to be able to control her crowd.
.. oh and FoxNews/republican is VERY busy making sure the fight keep getting longer.
they are injecting people in several sites too. total mess.
I hope Hillary knows what she is doing online, this mess is not going to finish 2-3 days after she quit the race.
Hey Mitchforth! Thanks for coming into our Pandagon house, climbing up on the breakfast table, dropping your trousers, and squeezing out a big deuce into our morning cornflakes. I really enjoy getting up on a Sunday morning and facing that.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I just LOVE how a white male can judge a Black female and decide her perspective on race and other aspects of life as a minority in this country are “relentless negativity”. Being white and male, you’ve obviously got the background to know, so we should give your judgment of Michelle Obama 100% respect.
Or we could just see you as yet another over-privileged idiot talking out of his Reichwing ass…
And just slide in that implication that John Edwards is gay, again, and this time imply that his terminal-cancer-patient wife is “funny” too (she obviously enables her husband’s orientation, is probably a lesbian, used a turkey baster to get pregnant, etc.).
Mitchforth, you are one class act…
I also love how Michelle Obama is expected to STFU and smile like a good girl because “life has treated her so well”, i.e. hey, just be happy you’re not a crack whore, because being black and all it could’ve gone either way.
Whereas of course the anger, frustration, and dare I say “bitterness” of the white middle class male is all that’s really holding up the Republican party at this point.
Hey white guys — who shat in your cornflakes?
The “tee-hee let’s tiptoe up to calling Edwards a fag but not quite do it tee-hee-hee” thing has been keeping Parker going for a while now. She’s basically an airheaded version of Ann Coulter.
Methinks Parker reads too much “slash fiction”. Her problem is that Edwards and Obama are two handsome young men. If they were old and ugly, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, then she’d probably be able to control her fantasies better.
I guess the wingnut press is trying to distract Americans from noticing the failure of President Bush’s ass-kissing tour of the Middle East.
Obviously his own blowjob skills are not up to par, when even his hand-holding Saudi buds say “sorry, no more oil for you!”
Where’s JimmyJeff when you need him?
blockquote>
I don’t know about anyone else, but I just LOVE how a white male can judge a Black female and decide her perspective on race and other aspects of life as a minority in this country are “relentless negativity”. Being white and male, you’ve obviously got the background to know, so we should give your judgment of Michelle Obama 100% respect.
I’ve got the background to know that when you went to Princeton and Harvard, and you live in a multimillion-dollar mansion with an expansive wine cellar, it’s rude to whine about your student loans to people who are having trouble making their mortgage payments.
As I’ve said before, I’m not really swayed by these privilege arguments. I don’t think the Obamas are particularly underprivileged. I don’t think the extremely wealthy and influential Rev. Wright is underprivileged. Michelle Obama has never had an opportunity closed off to her for economic reasons, and that’s the best definition of “privilege” I can think of.
Similarly, John Edwards’s obsession with his hair is not especially compelling as an argument of his masculinity. Obsession with such things indicates he is frivolous and foppish, but those aren’t necessarily gendered concepts. Bill Clinton had an expensive barber too.
The problem with Edwards is that he claims common cause with the poor, while he spends more on his hair than they spend on their children. His $400 haircut makes a joke of his populism.
“As I’ve said before, I’m not really swayed by these privilege arguments. I don’t think the Obamas are particularly underprivileged. I don’t think the extremely wealthy and influential Rev. Wright is underprivileged. Michelle Obama has never had an opportunity closed off to her for economic reasons, and that’s the best definition of “privilege” I can think of.”
…well, aside from that whole “Black” thing, you might have had a point…but then you rub your two braincells together and realize that Obama is the least wealthy of the candidates still running. And Rev. Wright isn’t running for anything. And McCain’s wife could buy and sell all of them. And by Republican standards, Cindy McCain is just barely middle class.
But of course, I’m forgetting two really important facts:
Being a Democrat and having wealth is proof that you exploited people on your way up, and your success has prevented you from ever understanding Real Americans. If you talk about the gap between Rich and Poor, you are an evil hypocrite who deserves scorn for even daring to attempt to talk about wealth distribution in America.
However, being a Republican and having wealth proves you are in god’s favor, and the more wealth you have, the better you understand and can relate to the trials and tribulations of being an Ordinary American. If you talk about somebody working 5-jobs just to survive, you emphasize what an inspiration they are to all Americans - just before you get into your limo for the trip to your private jet. Besides, all Americans believe in trickle-down economics, even if that “rain” falling on you feels suspiciously like some Republican asshole peeing on your leg…
“I’ve got the background to know that when you went to Princeton and Harvard, and you live in a multimillion-dollar mansion with an expansive wine cellar, it’s rude to whine about your student loans to people who are having trouble making their mortgage payments.”
You are so right! How dare that uppity
NegressColored womanBlack bitch not know her place! She acts all high and mighty like she’s better than Mitchforth. But we all know she ain’t shit. The fact that Barack hasn’t slapped her Black ass down and told her to shut up is an indication he’s completely unfit for office…Now, isn’t it so much better to elect a guy who’s been wealthy his entire life, who dumped the wife who stuck with him while he was a POW in Vietnam in order to trade up for a newer and more wealthy Stepford Mark II model, who comes right out and says that anybody who doesn’t have squat now deserves to get squat for the rest of their lives? The kind of man who can call his wife a cunt to her face? The kind of man who would get his wife to finance his candidacy through the back door, even after he called her a cunt?
A man who takes a brave stand against torture - just before he votes in favor of it. A man who has sworn his undying support of our war veterans in their time of need - just before he stabbed them in the back. A man whose personal experiences in Vietnam gave him the strength of will and the wisdom to avoid ever getting the US involved in another pointless foreign war - all of which flew right out the window just as soon as there was political gain to be had.
A sterling man of principle like John McCain! A man dedicated to the principle that whatever it takes to get into office, no matter how heinous, is justified in the end…
I didn’t know assholes could pee.
Bitter, when the blue-blood scion of a wealthy and politically connected family from the northeast with degrees from Harvard AND Yale can be portrayed as a down-to-earth, shit-kicking, good-old-boy native Texan - and get some people to believe it - getting an asshole to pee is nothin’…
My educational background is similar to Mrs. Obama’s. I have an expensive education, a well-compensated job and I am still paying student loans. The difference is that I don’t make public speeches complaining about my student debt to people who are going into hock to buy groceries. This isn’t a race thing at all. Marie Antoinette faced serious repercussions for the same sort of statements.
Maybe your worldview is so focused on your perception of privileges because you view every criticism as racist.
I don’t know why I keep taking your bait. You’re obviously a rabid ideologue and probably mentally ill. But I can’t understand how even someone with your limited capacities can’t see the inherent inconsistencies between your habit of viewing every criticism of the Obamas as racially motivated hate speech, and the vicious invective you spew about McCain.
Obama is certainly looking to throw McCain in the river with the George W. cinder block chained around his neck in November, but he would never go as far as bloggers routinely go in conflating the two or in vilifying McCain.
Public showings of support for the party and pep rally hugs aside, it is widely known that McCain and Bush dislike each other personally, and that McCain has not forgiven Bush for the intensely dirty campaign Bush ran in South Carolina in 2000.
By contrast, McCain is personally friendly with a number of prominent Democrats, including Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton. He has worked tirelessly on bipartisan legislation, and his efforts to reform the mechanisms by which wealth corrupts politics should be admired by anyone who believes the very rich have too much power.
Second, the torture bill was a set-up for McCain by Democratic congressional leadership. Every newspaper and sophisticated congressional observer was aware that the bill was poisoned for the purpose of using it as a political point against McCain, and a sound-bite for PACs to use in 30 second spots to sway disengaged members of the electorate.
But the Democratic leadership is not questioning McCain’s sincerity on the torture issue before any sophisticated audience, because such attacks are transparantly feeble.
Using bullshit to misrepresent a candidate’s policy stance was contemptible when Bush dismissed Al Gore’s serious proposal for Social Security reform as “fuzzy math,” and it’s contemptible to use that to misrepresent McCain’s stance on torture.
And I absolutely do not believe that McCain is a warmonger, or that he is supporting the war for popularity. The war is unpopular right now, and I think
McCain is correct that a unilateral withdrawal right now would result in the collapse of the infrastructure that’s been built there, and a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, with the end result being the extermination by genocide of the Sunnis and Iran consolidating power over the region.
McCain has a son serving in Iraq, and I don’t believe he comes to his positions on the issue frivolously.
“The problem with Edwards is that he claims common cause with the poor, while he spends more on his hair than they spend on their children.” Um, McCain aside, what’s this say about the affluent lifestyles of RFK and FDR? Guess they couldn’t be trusted to help the poor either? As for the idea that Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright aren’t allowed to derive their views from outrage over oppression because their own lives had a certain amount of comfort, there’s the same essentialist position being taken there: evidently people are so completely self-absorbed that it’s inconceivable for someone to base their actions or positions on empathy, solidarity, or compassion for those less fortunate. Edwards may think it’s good for him to be wealthy, but he can’t make the leap of the imagination to the idea that poverty must suck for others, so he has to fake it. MLK and Gautama Buddha ditto. OTOH, suffering, rather than making people angry and bitter as often as not, is all that makes it possible to oppose evil: hence McCain is likely to end war and torture, because he suffered from both. I see the reasoning here, and it’s very pessimistic about humanity.
Mike Ess–
Don’t be so hard on Mitchforth. Clearly, he has no valid arguments, so he just rants about non-issues and non-candidates.
I think that somewhere inside, he knows that McCain can’t win this year based on such frivolities, and it’s really tearing him up inside that he’ll soon be deprived of the pleasure of reading the latest Iraq body count in the morning paper. I think he is to be pitied.
Mitchforth–
Huh? The bill banned the use of torture. McCain voted against it, knowing when he did so that it could put our own soldiers at risk if they are captured.
Mitchforth:
Actually, the real difference is that nobody gives a fuck what you think. QED.
Well, it’s not like this is some kind of grand revelation. I’d be more impressed if he’d seen it coming six years ago, like those of us who actually paid attention in history class did. Any idiot can figure out that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men won’t be able to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again after he falls off the wall.
Of course, Darth Cheney himself told us that this is exactly what would happen back in ‘94, fat lot of good that little bit of prescience did.
The fact that the words “sincerity” and “sanity” both start with the letter S does not mean that concepts they signify are in any way related.
A civil war would result? Anyone been looking at the news for the last three years?
That picture always reminds me of Febreze. It eliminates even the stench of failure!
Yo, Mitchforth, speak for yourself. Actually, I don’t believe he came to his position frivolously as much as emotionally. He believes that staying and fighting in Iraq is a “point of honor” and that pulling out would be “bad for morale,” by which he means his ego. McCain isn’t a hypocrite, or doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. It’s just that his ideology and convictions are bad ones, more concerned with emotional issues related to the importance of fighting rather than what’s in the US’s strategic interests. For him, fighting a war isn’t a last resort with enormous costs: it’s an end in and of itself.I don’t think the Obamas are particularly underprivileged… Michelle Obama has never had an opportunity closed off to her for economic reasons, and that’s the best definition of “privilege” I can think of.
Hey, so I don’t know if you knew this, but Michelle Obama’s parents were a low-level civil servant and a secretary. She grew up on the south side of Chicago. We’re not talking about a scion of privilege, here.
That’s what gets me about all the Republican talk about people like the Obamas and the Edwardses being “elitists”. These are people who have generations of extreme wealth behind them dubbing “overprivileged elitists” people who have been able to fulfill the so-called American dream of ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’.
Which leads me to wonder how the rank and file of the Republican party can actually buy the idea that their bazillionaire overlords actually have their economic interests in mind. You think they hate Barack and Michelle for having the nerve to finagle themselves world-class educations despite modest backgrounds? Wait till they get a load of you…
“You’re obviously a rabid ideologue and probably mentally ill.”
I see your capacity for projection is undiminished. I guess that’s one Reichwing quality that is infinitely renewable…
“But I can’t understand how even someone with your limited capacities…”
…thanks for the compliment!…
“…can’t see the inherent inconsistencies between your habit of viewing every criticism of the Obamas as racially motivated hate speech, and the vicious invective you spew about McCain.”
I’ll tell you what. As soon as I see a serious attack on Barack that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly involve his genetics, I will treat it as such.
(FYI, Michelle Obama is NOT running for office, and is NOT a valid target for attack. I have only brought up Cindy McCains’s money - as used to promote her husband’s campaign - in this discussion, not any of the myriad of other juicy topics she could be attacked on. You may think I’m a “rabid ideologue”, but I do believe there are fair and unfair attacks…)
“Obama is certainly looking to throw McCain in the river with the George W. cinder block chained around his neck in November…”
…as well he should…
“…but he would never go as far as bloggers routinely go in conflating the two or in vilifying McCain.”
You really seem to believe:
#1 Obama isn’t very smart. Where you get that is a mystery, especially considering he was NOT only able to get into Harvard as a legacy. Don’t look at people and assume they are as stupid as George W. Bush. A majority of this planet could outperform GWB in a test of mental capacity. Of course Obama will attack him mercilessly. As well he should.
#2 Somehow there is this extreme gap between McCain and Bush that bloggers are papering over. WTF? The two men may hate each other personally, but their political positions are not very different at all. Moreover, McCain has basically sacrificed any actual differences in order to get the Republican nomination. He has transformed himself into Bush’s older adopted brother to get his last shot at POTUS…
“By contrast, McCain is personally friendly with a number of prominent Democrats, including Joe Lieberman, Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton. He has worked tirelessly on bipartisan legislation, and his efforts to reform the mechanisms by which wealth corrupts politics should be admired by anyone who believes the very rich have too much power.”
To the extent that McCain was serious about “reaching across the aisle”, that man is dead, executed in the service of McCain’s run for POTUS. (BTW, NEVER mention Joe LIEberman as an example of a Democrat. If he was one once, he sold it all to cling to his miserable senate seat long ago.) “Bipartisan”, which used to have meaning many years ago, is merely an empty word that currently that means “give the Rethugs what they want, or else”. You don’t seem to be very attentive, Mitchforth.
“McCain is correct that a unilateral withdrawal right now would result in the collapse of the infrastructure that’s been built there, and a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, with the end result being the extermination by genocide of the Sunnis and Iran consolidating power over the region.”
That is so lunatic, there really isn’t much to say. The political and physical landscape of Iraq, as currently constituted, will be virtually identical if we leave today or in 5-10-20-etc. years. The only difference will be that American families will not be senselessly losing their young men and women in a pointless and evil occupation…
MikeEss:
And of course, it goes almost without saying (although it can’t be stressed enough) that however Iraq is screwed up — whether or not McCain actually believes what you say he believes, or is right about it if indeed he does — IT’S OUR FAULT.
Back in 2001, Iraq may very well have been a totalitarian dictatorship run by a man who ten years previously implicitly insulted the size of Daddy Bush’s penis, but at least it was a stable totalitarian dictatorship run by a man who ten years previously implicitly insulted the size of Daddy Bush’s penis.
Geez, it was bad enough to have to deal with the idiocies of Mitchforth at Feministe — now he’s slithered over here, too.
Yes, because everything is going so well in America right now. Gas is 50 cents a gallon, every American has an affordable mortgage, and the Iraqis really did welcome us with flowers and candy and all of our troops are safely home. We’re living through a time of unprecedented peace, prosperity and equality, so all of this negative campaigning is just coming out of nowhere.
What are you smoking, and where can I get some of it?
“What are you smoking, and where can I get some of it?”
Oh sure. It SEEMS like a fun thing to do, but what if you turn into one of those undead wingnut Koolaid drinkers?…
Ah, I think I figured out where this particular Mitchforth rant came from. Apparently the Tennessee Republicans have a web commercial featuring Michelle Obama. These are the same guys who were sending out press releases about “Barack HUSSEIN Obama,” so they’re clearly full of class.
I guess the Republicans know they can’t run successfully against Democratic policies or Democratic candidates, so they’ll have to blow out-of-context comments out of proportion to try and get it close enough to steal. You could almost feel sorry for their pathetic thrashings if they weren’t such assholes about it all.
Let’s be nice to poor Mitchforth. I read all the way back to his first blog entry, and it can’t be easy actually being the “lifelong Democrat” that so many yoostabees say they yoostabee.
On second thought, let’s not be nice to his 99.44% fact-free outpourings of sneers and adjectives. It only encourages his delusions of existence.